' ABDUL MAJEED MALLICK, C.J.--The petition is addressed for amendment of decree of this Court passed on July 12, 1986.
2. Sardar Abdul Aziz was serving in Forests Department as Range Officer in Azad Kashmir. He was sent on deputation to serve in watershed Management Department of WAPDA on August 14, 1961.
During the service on deputation, he was promoted by WAPDA to the post of Watershed Management Officer on December 26, 1965 with retrospective effect. He retired on superannuation on November 21, 1974. He was reappointed by WAPDA against the same post for one year from the date of his retirement. During this period, some junior officers were promoted in his own department. He made a representation to the Government. The Government accepted the representation by promoting him to the post of A.C.F. The Government passed its order on February 2, 1976 when the officer was already retired. The order of promotion was given effect from June 1, 1972. Thus, the officer was granted Grade-18 of National Pay Scales. In the light of the aforesaid Government order, he made a representation to the Government and WAPDA for payment of his arrears accruing to him on account of the aforesaid promotion. Ultimately, he brought a suit in the Court of District Judge on February 28, 1977, wherein he claimed payment of Rs,63,517.80. The learned District Judge partly decreed the suit against the Government. According to the order of the District Judge, the defendant had to pay Rs,21,806.92, in addition to emoluments admissible under rules with interest @ 9% per year, arrears of pay for one year w.e.f, November 21, 1974 to November 31, 1975 and pay of one month plus TA @ Rs,60, with interest @ 9%. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the District Judge, preferred an appeal before this Court. The appeal was decided by the Division Bench on June 5, 1985. On accepting the appeal, this Court, in addition to the decree passed by the District Judge, also granted decree against WAPDA and Project Director Watershed Management, for payment of Rs,16,865; one month's salary at the rate of pay admissible to the appellant at the rate of last pay drawn by him, with interest @ 9%. It was further ordered that deputation allowance and one month's salary shall be paid on deduction of pension received by the appellant. The decree was drawn in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of this Court. The plaintiff moved for execution of decree. The Executing Court passed attachment orders against the Government when the Government moved an application in revision against the orders of attachment passed on April 17, and May 28, 1986. The learned Chief Justice of the time sent the application for its decision to one of the Judges of this Court, on July 8, 1986. In revision petition various objections were raised on behalf of the Government, wherein it was averred that the decree was silent in respect of the period for which interest was payable.
Moreover, the nature and amount of interest was determinable. The learned Judge, on hearing the learned Counsel for the Government and decree-holder, disposed of the petition on July 12, 1986.
On passing of the aforesaid order, the nature and amount of interest was entered in the decree as agreed by the Government/judgment-debtor. The decree drawn in the light of the order of July 12, 1986 is desired to be amended in the present petition.
3. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure postulates that the Court may correct, at any stage, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The authority of amendment could be invoked on the application of any of the parties or suo motu. The language of Section 152, C.P.C. Clearly describes the dimension of scope of amendment of judgments, decrees or orders wherein clerical or arithmetical mistakes cropped up by virtue of accidental slip or omission. It confines to clerical or arithmetical mistakes and not deep application of mind to introduce a new case or to reappraise the merits of the case of the parties or to reconsider the proposition of law or facts already decided. Moreover, the Court has to be vigilant in exercise of its discretion in deciding such an application as the powers of the Court are, obviously, much less than appellate jurisdiction. An identical proposition was raised in Talib Hussain's case (PLD 1982 SC AJ&K 42). The scope of discretion exercisable under Section 152, C.P.C. Was resolved as:-- "Decree is always consistent to the judgment. The terms and conditions of decree must conform to the judgment. Where a decree is inconsistent and at variance with the judgment, on the application of either party or suo motu, the Court is competent to modify the decree so as to make it consistent to the judgment. Likewise, where a decree is vague and indefinite, it is to be modified in such manner that it conforms to the judgment."
' In Haji I shtiaq Ahmad's case (1976 SCM R 420), Mr. Justice Anwarul Haq, the learned Judge who spoke for the Court, analysed the proposition covered by Section 152, C.P.C., as under:-- ""It will be seen that this section permits the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees etc., or of errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, but does not authorise the Court to supplement its judgments, decrees or orders by directions which require application of mind, and have the effect of taking away rights which may have otherwise accrued to one party or the other."
' An identical proposition was raised in Mst. Farosha's case (PLD 1983 SC 220).
' Mr. Justice Zaffar Hussain Mirza, the learned Judge who recorded the verdict of the Court, observed as:-- "The plain reading of the section, leaves no doubt whatsoever, that the power conferred on the Court, if the case falls within the purview of its provisions, can be exercised at any time and it has accordingly been held that there is no time limit for entertaining an application in that behalf. Also it is apparent that the power can be exercised suo motu. It has, however, been held that the fact that powers of Court under section 152, Civil Procedure Code are unlimited, does not mean that they will be exercised in all cases in which an application for their exercise is made. The exercise of power will depend on the circumstances of each case. See Sher Muhammad and others v. Khuda Bux and another. For instance, if on the basis of the uncorrected decree a third party has acquired rights. The power is, therefore, discretionary with the Court, although normally where the provisions of Section 152, Civil Procedure Code are attracted, it will order amendment, unless it is inequitable to do so."
4. In this case, our attention is invited to the details of the decree relating to different amounts, rate of interest and the amount payable by interest. Moreover, various claims have been raised in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the petition, showing thereby that the amount of claim payable by WAPDA in the light of the decree of this Court, was already adjusted and that some of the amount was not payable.
The points raised in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the petition are beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 152, C.P.C. All these points necessitate an inquiry which is not permissible at this stage. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the WAPDA that the learned District Judge in his order, shifted the entire liability on the Government and that this Court also agreed with the aforesaid finding. It was canvassed that in the light of the aforesaid finding, no amount of claim was recoverable from WAPDA. Without going into factual controversy raised in the petition, we are of the view that the decrees passed by this Court and the District Judge conform to the judgments of the subordinate Court and this Court. There is only one clerical mistake and that is, that this Court allowed claim in favour of the decree-holder in the sum of Rs,16,865 as deputation allowance payable by WAPDA and Project Director, Watershed Management. In the decree prepared on July 12, 1986, this amount was entered as R s.18,865. There was an apparent mistake which is liable to be rectified. We, therefore, hold that it shall be read as Rs,16,865 instead of Rs,18,865.
5. The learned District judge as well as this Court allowed claim of the plaintiff, alongwith the interest payable to him. 'The rate of interest was fixed as 9%. It was unexplained as to whether the interest chargeable on the amount was to be calculated as simple interest or compound interest.
The learned Judge of this Court explained it in the manner that the :interest leviable on the amount shall be compound interest. This is not a clerical mistake or accidental slip. Both the decrees contained the rate of interest. However, the learned Judge, while deciding the revision petition, explained that the decree-holder shall be paid the amount alongwith the interest and the interest shall be in the shape of compound interest. It is a definite finding by application of mind which cannot be amended in exercise of powers under Section 152, C.P.C. Likewise, the other findings relating to salary of nine days and house rent, are also findings of facts recorded on appreciation of evidence. These findings cannot be termed as accidental slip or arithmetical mistakes.
Therefore, this finding cannot be changed.
' The petition stands disposed of in the light of our observations recorded above.